ESOCommunity

Meh I wrote a long post earlier today about this but it's gone now due to site issues and I couldn't find it in my cache. I'm not gonna write it again, basically I said we should start playing maps other than ESOC Andes.

Dang it, that sucks man. I agree with you though, playing Andes repeatedly gets old sometimes, and the common treaty alternatives (Deccan, Siberia, Himalayas) all have their caveats. Andes truly is the best of the bunch.

Has anybody else tried other maps extensively in Treaty? Are there any "hidden jewels" we're missing?

Soon.

Gichtenlord wrote:Soon.

OP. But I meant we should play the maps we already have. Everyone only plays ESOC Andes, when Incan Alps, Toluca, Snowy Great Plains, and Northern California are all decent. If you want to make new maps that would also be good .

I dont think that I will make a new map soon. I hate coding in this rms language. Almost no documentation and the compiler is completely outdated.
Maybe a more complex map, when I have an idea, which is hopefully challenging, but no simple plain map again.^^

dicktator_ wrote:

Gichtenlord wrote:Soon.

OP. But I meant we should play the maps we already have. Everyone only plays ESOC Andes, when Incan Alps, Toluca, Snowy Great Plains, and Northern California are all decent. If you want to make new maps that would also be good .

I was wholly unaware these maps even existed. Perhaps a quick run-down of the general positioning meta on each of these maps would be a good resource for those of us who haven't fought on them before.

Right now it's hard enough to convince others to use treaty patch. If I can't explain to others the map we are about to play, switching to TP will be basically impossible to orchestrate.

Gear_Head wrote:Perhaps a quick run-down of the general positioning meta on each of these maps would be a good resource for those of us who haven't fought on them before.

That was in my original post but it's gone now.

I cant really tell how good toluca is, since I never played on it, but incan alps is a good map, imo. Atleast I prefer it over the current esoc andes version.

Ye, i would also really like to play more or other maps.
Some maps to consider for play:

Toluca: I have only played a few games on it, but it seems to be a good map with various key positions on the map, i.e nats on the side you dont want enemy to get control of, but easiest to push into enemy base from middle.

Incan alps: It has a good layout(5 tps, interesting cliffs area), but is a bit big imo. You can push and push forever without getting anything for it.

Northen California: is a good map imo. The square trade rout in middle makes it kinda interesting.

Snowy GP: is also good. The natives are good and i like the layout of the trade rout (for once not making hm a place very hard to push past). I've only played 1v1 and 2v2 on that map so far. The 1v1 map is WAY to small and i still kinda dislike the white ground, but no big deal.

Himalayas and Himalayas Upper: Interesting maps that are fairly balanced. The cliffs makes for some interesting positioning and split fights. The good treasures makes age1 less boring, but -5% coin cost might be a bit too strong.

Deccan: A nice map imo. It have many important strategical points on the map. Most importantly, if you lose platue you almost always lose the game. But you shouldn't lose platue that easily. The river side contains a trade rout that can give a nice ress boost although it is very hard to push into the enemy base from there. if you control whole river side however, you can annoy the enemy and force him to divide pop and attention to stop you from mortaring his eco walls from river. The open trade rout side; once again trade routs to fight over, and this is the easiest and fastest way to push into the enemy base, although you will need to have at least partially control of the platue for it to work. The good treasures makes age1 less boring, but 10% inf hp and +5 max pop is a bit too strong.

There are plenty of other maps to tryout too, especially if you can just agree on not going water even if there is. Example on maps to check out are: Sagunay, New England, Ozarks, Painted Desert, Texas and Sonora. If people are just prepared to try new maps there are plenty out there. Andes (ESOC Andes) might be the best, but there are many others that could bring variation and exiting games. I'm up for testing any of these.

martinspjuth wrote:
There are plenty of other maps to tryout too, especially if you can just agree on not going water even if there is. Example on maps to check out are: Sagunay, New England, Ozarks, Painted Desert, Texas and Sonora. If people are just prepared to try new maps there are plenty out there. Andes (ESOC Andes) might be the best, but there are many others that could bring variation and exiting games. I'm up for testing any of these.

Maps with water just don't have much space to fight on the land, especially New England. Ozarks is alright. I don't like the colour of Painted Desert+it's very very small and Texas doesn't have any resources at all besides mines+you can't close walls in team games. On Sonora the trade route doesn't allow you to wall your base well+there is 1 native post on each side of the map in the exact middle, so civs with a good first army will be able to take control of those very easily and denying them from your opponent will most likely make you win the game (almost like losing incan nats directly from the start).

The biggest problem with maps without incas is that everything's so slow...

Ye some water maps might be short on space for land fights. I think New England is fine though, for 2v2 there seems to be enough space on each side of the lakes to make for 2 nice fights where whoever pushes gets rewarded with control over trade rout. Painted Desert is a bit small, that's true. That Texas have a bit too few ress is also true. Your points on Sonora are also probably valid. My point was just that there are many maps out there that could make for some decent games even though they might not be perfect. Some other examples could be: Mongolia (although OP treasures), Yellow river, Silk Road, Plymouth and Patagonia. If you just agree to no water (and maybe no nats in some cases) they could provide some very interesting and unusual games.

As for maps without Incas. This has been discussed many times before, but i'll give my opinion again. Maps without Incas are a lot less spamy. Here you have to think more about positioning and starting batches with 1 unit to later fill them up right before they pop. Here walls and mortars are more important strategically pieces and the importance to have the very best trade possible in the main fight is slightly less important. If you are the better player you should still not have any trouble draining or pushing the enemy. To have games like this once in a while would just be fun imo.

Would be interesting to play on silk route and to fight for the trading posts.

Aren't these trading posts pretty bad?

Is it even possible for there to be a "bad" map for treaty?

Mitoe wrote:Is it even possible for there to be a "bad" map for treaty?

Siberia

Amazonia